MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193487785 · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01097

The Speed of Justice

2021· preprint· en· W3193487785 on OpenAlexaff
Florence Kondylis, Mattea Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economics and Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationDutyJudicial reformEvent studyCivil procedureFormalism (music)Political scienceConstruct (python library)Quality (philosophy)BusinessPublic economicsEconomicsComputer scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Can procedural reforms improve judicial efficiency? And do improvements in judicial efficiency benefit firms? We combine the staggered rollout of a reform that required judges in Senegal to complete pretrials within four months with high-frequency caseload data and firm tax filings. The reform improved judicial efficiency, with no effect on quality. Firm monthly revenues drop by 8–11% upon entering pretrial and decline by on average 3.2–5.0% for every hundred days a case spends in pretrial. Survey results show firms are willing to pay higher legal fees to achieve postreform speed, suggesting positive benefits of the reform on firms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Economics and StatisticsSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207